Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Monday, December 31, 2012

Government Spending Gone Wild!

The following post is a humorous look at the pork that was stuffed into the Hurricane Sandy bill.  Can't we just get a clean bill relating ONLY to the subject matter?  No wonder we have such problems, every bill is stuffed with goodies for other constituencies.  

Tell us your opinion of this or any other item that has upset you in the past 39 years!

Conservative Tom

Hurricane Sandy pork

By Tom Purcell

Published: Saturday, December 29, 2012, 8:04 p.m.Updated: Saturday, December 29, 2012 

Many news outlets are reporting that President Obama‘s proposed $60.4 billion federal aid bill for Hurricane Sandy victims is packed with pork. I contacted my White House insider, Deep Mole, to get some answers.
Purcell: Isn‘t this another example of reckless politicians exploiting an emergency to fund pet projects and pork?
Deep Mole: Pet projects? Pork? There is no pork in the president‘s proposal.
Purcell: You‘re nuts. As this bill worked its way through the Senate before Christmas, Democrats slipped in all kinds of non-emergency goodies. Then they offered more goodies to Republicans to win their support.
Deep Mole: Goodies?
Purcell: Why does the bill include $2 million to repair roof damage at Smithsonian buildings in Washington, D.C.?
Deep Mole: The Smithsonian is a national treasure that Sandy victims may one day visit. We must make sure they are not traumatized by leaky museum roofs!
Purcell: Nice try, my friend. Why does the emergency bill include $336 million for Amtrak-related expenses?
Deep Mole: Amtrak is a common mode of transportation for New York residents to travel to Washington and go to the Smithsonian. We must make sure Sandy victims are not traumatized by broken-down trains.
Purcell: You are clever. Then explain why the emergency bill includes $8 million to buy new cars for federal agencies.
Deep Mole: Many federal agencies are assisting Sandy victims. They need new cars from government-owned General Motors to drive to the areas where government services are most needed.
Purcell: You‘re good. Then explain why the bill includes $150 million for fisheries in Mississippi and Alaska.
Deep Mole: Hurricane victims are known to work very hard cleaning up their messy homes and burning excess calories. It is essential they have access to high-protein American fish!
Purcell: Then explain how $4 million for repairs at the Kennedy Space Center has anything to do with a hurricane in the Northeast.
Deep Mole: The John F. Kennedy Space Center has launched many historic flights into space, bringing inspiration and hope to millions of Americans. Aren‘t inspiration and hope what Sandy victims need most?
Purcell: Not bad, my friend, but this waste is yet another example of our politicians “not letting a good crisis go to waste.” Our country has almost $16.3 trillion in debt. We are accumulating additional debt at the rate of $150 million an hour — yet the gravy train keeps rolling. Our political leaders are out of control.
Deep Mole: They are?
Purcell: Yes, the Taxpayers for Common Sense explain that the federal government has established a clear definition of what an “emergency” is to determine which incidents or events are worthy of federal relief. Emergency spending should only support something that is necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen and not permanent. Those are the rules.
Deep Mole: Rules? The Senate has not passed a budget in more than three years. There are no longer any rules. In our republic the only thing that can stop out-of-control politicians from spending recklessly are the voters — and a majority of them no longer care about what we waste money on, so long as they get their cut.
Purcell: Well, if the pork-laden version of the Sandy bill passes the Senate, the only hope is that the Republican House will do its job and strip out the waste. It is called checks and balances.
Deep Mole: So naive. If Republicans in the House do anything to hold up the bill, the president will tar them for withholding assistance to the victims of Sandy and the media will saturate the airwaves with images of the obliteration Sandy caused. Dumb Republicans can‘t win for losing.
Tom Purcell, a freelance writer, lives in Library. Visit him on the web at E-mail him

Read more: 
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

Hobby Lobby Letter

This may be old news to some, it is not for us.  Any company should NOT be forced to
 decide between its religious beliefs and the mandated requirements of the government. 

We do have freedom of religion in this country and it should extend beyond the individual 

to the businesses that they own.  

That is our opinion, what is yours!

Conservative Tom

Letter from Hobby Lobby:

A Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we
were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there,Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby � and my family � are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American � and no American business � should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.

Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, pass this on to all your contacts.
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Confiscation of Guns Next?

All freedom loving Americans should fear what the gun-grabbers are up to.  They, in the face of Senator Diane Feinstein, have proposed to effectively confiscate all "assault" weapons after the death of the owner, regardless of the licensing of the person who might inherit the weapon. If they get this done, it will not be long before all guns are taken by the government. Yes, that is the slippery slope argument, however, in this country today, those who lead us are the most conniving and deceitful politicians we have ever seen in this country.  

This government is NOT your friend. It is your enemy and must be kept at bay via laws and the Constitution. However, when you see the strengthening of the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act which effectively takes away citizen rights, the time has come to wonder when will we get the "knock" on the door.  Heck, if you hold up a sign within view of the President, you can be arrested.  That is not the America in which we grew up.

There is no argument that Adam Lanza was a nut case who stole legal weapons and used them to do an atrocious act. However, to punish all law abiding citizens for the crimes of a insane killer, is also insane.

If the gun-grabbers were serious about stopping violence against children, they would attack the larger causes of death such as medical mistakes, car accidents, and falling off ladders. However, the goal of the gun  haters is more sinister, they want to remove from the hands of everyday Americans, the ability to defend themselves from the government. 

Just as President Obama does not want to have to put up with the Congress to get things passed (i.e. Dream Act), he and his friends will administratively pass gun restrictions which are much more draconian than the ones proposed by the Senator Feinstein.  We should expect that within a month of the failure of the latest rendition of gun control legislation, President Obama will institute his own version and pass it administratively which will include outrageous fees ($10,000 for example) for registration of weapons and annual fees ($500 per weapon  for example) which would prevent most law abiding people from paying.

Additonally, if one did not pay the fees and was found to have a gun it would result in a lifetime prison sentence and millions of dollars of fines.   Who would want to face that prospect? The only option would be to turn in the guns.  It will all be done "legally" and therefore there would be no Constitutionality issues.  "If you pay the fees, you can keep your guns" will be the pablum that will be fed to the masses.

Do not be deceived, this Administration and its friends want to disarm this country so that they will be able to control it the way they want. They want to "change" America.  Be Scared, Be Very Scared!

Conservative Tom

The Gun Grab Cometh

December 31, 2012 by  
The Gun Grab Cometh
Whether the gun grabbers orchestrated the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre or just saw it as the perfect opportunity to rip the heart out of yet another Constitutional amendment, before the bodies of those slaughtered babies were even cold the 1 percent were signaling that 2013 is going to be a tumultuous year for gun owners — and liberty.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Fascist-Calif.) announced on her website on Dec. 17 that she was introducing a bill in January to “stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devises.” It will ban 120 specifically named weapons, including handguns and shotguns, and strengthen the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004.
According to the outline of Feinstein’s bill, it will grandfather in all legally owned weapons, but it will require they be registered and the owner fingerprinted. It will require a $200 per weapon tax be paid. The guns will not be transferable, meaning that upon the death of the owner the guns will become the property of the Federal government. It will allow the sale of 900 specifically named weapons, but none that can accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.
She and her fascist cohorts in crime — New York’s Senator Chuck Schumer and Representatives Carolyn McCarty and Jerrold Nadler and West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, among others — are calling for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and any weapon that uses high-capacity magazines. Unfortunately, a vast number of the unwashed masses — in a fit of emotionalism resulting from the thought of all those dead kindergartners — are buying into the lie that one more law would have saved those innocents. The above-mentioned 1 percenters all indicated they would steal everyone’s weapons and magazines, placating themselves with the rationalization that it’s a gun and magazine buy-back program, if they thought they could get away with it.
Never mind that purported shooter Adam Lanza broke a half dozen or more laws before he ever shot the first child. Never mind that Connecticut is ranked fifth of the 50 States in gun control laws, according the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence because the State “has strong gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of most guns without background checks and reduce risks to children.” And never mind that, according to FBI homicide data, rifles of all types are the least-used guns when crimes are committed.
Of course, Feinstein, Schumer, et al. care not a whit about children, as I explained here. If they did, they’d be weeping over the hundreds of children killed by President Barack Obama’s drone attacks, those killed in car accidents because of corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards and government-mandated air bags, and the 2,000 aborted every day in America.
Instead, they try to turn reason on its ear by equating law-abiding Americans — who own certain semi-automatic weapons — with terrorists. So their answer is to add more layers of laws, bureaucracy and expense on the already burdensome exercise of acquiring weapons for protection (and yes, it can be burdensome in some States).
But you don’t need those scary-looking so-called “assault weapons” to protect yourself, they’ll say. Or, as President Barack Obama reminds us in typical straw man fashion, military-style weapons with high capacity magazines shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians.
Tell that to these men who were left to their own devices during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

When society broke down, law enforcement was nowhere to be found. These business owners armed themselves to protect their property. But had a large crowd braved the guns they possessed and come to loot their stores, the double-barreled shotgun and bolt-action rifle being wielded would have been inadequate, where an AR15 and several 30-round magazines would have been quite a deterrent. As the reporter said at the end of the clip, more than 100 Korean-owned businesses had already been looted. Just not this one.
The gun grabbers will tell you that you no one needs an AR15 because they’re not used for hunting. That would be a surprise to the tens of thousands of deer and other small game felled by them each year.
But the 2nd Amendment was not put in place just for hunters or for self-defense. It was put in place to protect Americans from totalitarians in government like Jerrold Nadler, who told CNS News: “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence. If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane.”
Yes, it’s insane because Americans are prohibited from owning “machine guns” unless they first acquire a Class 3 Federal firearms license, an expensive and daunting undertaking. The weapons on the list to be banned are semi-automatic — one trigger pull, one round fired — not fully automatic. That meme is yet another straw man.
If the state has a monopoly on violence, that is full-blown tyranny. Americans would no longer be citizens, they would be subjects. Nadler has revealed the end game.
Folks, the Sandy Hook shooting narrative has more holes than a piece of hardware cloth, as do the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting, the Milwaukee Sikh temple shooting and the 1999Columbine, Colo., massacre, for that matter. They’re likely all false flag events. And just like previous ones, they will lead to loss of liberty.
The fallout from these shootings is always the same: a call for stricter gun laws. As Nadler’s comment indicates, this time the gun grabbers are emboldened as never before. But why wouldn’t they be. It was just a year ago that they passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows for the indefinite detention, without charges or trial, of Americans on American soil. And they did so with barely a whimper out of the populace, which is becoming ever more docile and subservient by the day.
The psychopaths in the cesspool of Washington, D.C., realize there is no better time to strike than while Americans are emotionally drained from the visions of grieving parents and the sweet smiles of the dead children.
The truth is that of the 12,664 murders committed in the United States in 2011, rifles were used in only 323 of them. “Knives or other cutting instruments” were used in 1,694 murders; hands and feet in 726; and blunt objects like clubs and hammers were used in 496. A ban on knives and hands and feet would be far more effective in reducing murders, which Nadler claims is the goal.
But, of course, reducing murders is not the goal of the 1 percent. It’s total disarmament. That would give the state the long-awaited monopoly on violence.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Too Big To Fail Banks Win a Victory?

When you read this article, it appears as if a fee that big banks had to pay was killed by mutual funds and credit unions, however, that would be wrong. The fee was wiped out because it was only helping small, not too large to fail, banks.  These banks could not fail so the expense was just outgo without any benefit as they would never be allowed to go out of business.

The crime is that there should be NO bank or any other company that is too large to fail! Without the governor on the board to make good business decisions, knowing that a company is "too large to fail" removes any hesitation to properly evaluate the risk accompanying a proposal.

Additionally, it hurts competitors. A risky decision that goes wrong, could put a smaller competitor out of business while the "too large" would just have government money injected into it to save it. This is contrary to  a capitalist country.  This must stop!

Conservative Tom

Why a Popular Subsidy for Banks Died in the Senate

How did one of the most popular subsidies for big banks manage to get wiped off the books?
My brother Tim Carney explains that Senate Republicans earlier this month killed the Transaction Account Guarantee program with a parliamentary move that prevented Senate Majority leader Harry Reid from getting a straight up and down vote on it. But what's most interesting is the special interest dynamics Tim describes.
The program, which is known as TAG, was launched during the financial crisis to support liquidity and bank stability. The basic idea was to cover non-interest bearing deposit accounts used for things like payrolls that exceeded the normal FDIC insurance limits. Banks could opt-in and pay a fee that was supposedly based on estimates of the program's costs.
The fees, of course, were too low. TAG has been a money loser for the government. And Dodd-Frank made it a mandatory program, meaning that all banks had to pay the fee and participate in the program. This didn't make the program "solvent" but it did stop banks from adopting business strategies that involved competing for large accounts based on their own safety and soundness rather than backing by the government.
The program has been very popular with banks. At year end 2011, 20 percent of all U.S. bank deposits were TAG insured, for a total of $1.6 trillion in deposits, according to a paper from the St. Louis Fed.
The biggest banks -- those with assets of more than $15 billion -- hold 90 percent of TAG-insured deposits, a far greater market share than the 74 percent of all U.S. bank deposits they hold. This has become big business for the big banks: 24 percent of deposits at those $15 billion plus bulge banks are TAG-insured. These banks wanted to see the TAG programs extended.
But it wasn't only the big banks that wanted TAG extended. Small and community banks were pushing for an extension of the program. Some even wanted to make it permanent. They feared losing market share for big deposits to the big banks -- on totally justifiable grounds that these banks are still considered too big to fail.
The enemies of TAG were mutual funds and credit unions. The mutual fund companies, especially the money market funds, believed that TAG was diverting money away from their funds into government-backed bank accounts. With money-market funds paying such low interest rates these days, the price of having to go to zero-interest in a government-backed TAG account was very low.
Tim explains how the credit unions got involved:
Credit unions also helped kill TAG. They see community banks as their rivals, both on Main Street and on Capitol Hill. Community banks recently lobbied for regulations keeping credit unions from making more business loans. So some credit unions returned the favor, lobbying to kill the community banks' TAG subsidy.
This seems like a good outcome from a dirty process. In some ways it is reassuring to know that it is possible to end a taxpayer subsidy popular with our biggest banks -- even if it takes the selfishness of other special interest groups (in this case, the mutual funds and credit unions) to make that happen. A defeat for the big banks is rare and probably something to be celebrated.
There's probably another way to look at this, however. The TAG accounts are popular, in part, because interest rates are so low. Were interest rates to increase -- as they probably will sometime in the next few years -- businesses would likely have taken money out of non-interest bearing TAG accounts to pursue a return on savings in other accounts. A government backstop is only worth so much foregone interest.
What this means is that the extension of the TAG accounts were, at best, only going to benefit the big banks for another couple of years. Most bankers believe interest rates will climb in 2014 or 2015, at which point money would have started leaving TAG accounts. What's more, the biggest banks will probably gain some business in the meantime, as funds flow out of the community banks and into the implicitly-backed mega-banks.
Some bankers even wondered, privately of course, whether the mega-banks got any benefit at all from TAG. Citigroup and the like just aren't going to be allowed to fail, depositors know this very well. Few people are going to withdraw money just because the accounts at mega-banks lose their officially protected status.
The mega-banks also get to stop paying those pesky TAG fees, which were only being used to bailout the accounts of the small banks anyway. From the point of view of JP Morgan Chase, for instance, TAG fees were a subsidy to community banks. The threat of TAG fees rising to cover the cost of the program, of course, is now moot. (The mega-banks hated the idea of rising TAG fees because they would have paid the lion's share of higher fees due to their high market share of these accounts, while recouping almost nothing since they're never going to be allowed to fail.)
Conversations with lobbyists on Capitol Hill suggest that while the bank lobby was officially supporting an extension, they weren't pushing that hard for it. Some on Capitol Hill were even under the impression that representatives on at least one of the big banks were quietly indicating they wouldn't object to letting TAG die.
So perhaps TAG died not because the big banks were defeated but because the big banks didn't care all that much about a program that was due to die by market forces anyway. They may even have wanted it to die since they and their customers know that all of their deposits are protected by an implicit guarantee that doesn't cost a dime in fees.

Are Drugs The Real Cause of School Violence?

We have been looking for reports on the potential reasons for that Adam Lanza killed his mother and 26 others. This report is the first that seems to start putting the pieces together and tying this shooting with others in the past.

If this report is accurate, it should be drugs rather than guns that we should regulated and controlled!

Conservative Tom

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
NEW YORK – From the moment news emerged Friday that a young man had carried out a horrific massacre of elementary-school children, politicians from local city halls to the White House have been restoking the age-old push for more gun control. While guns have been a common denominator in mass slayings at schools by teens, there’s another familiar element that seems increasingly to be minimized.
Some 90 percent of school shootings over more than a decade have been linked to a widely prescribed type of antidepressant called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs, according to British psychiatrist Dr. David Healy, a founder of, an independent website for researching and reporting on prescription drugs.
Though there has been no definitive confirmation that drugs played a role in the Newtown, Conn., assault, that killed 20 children and six adults, media have cited family members and acquaintances saying suspect Adam Lanza was taking prescription medication to treat “a neurological-development disorder,” possibly Aspergers.
Healy cautioned that the public needs “to wait to find out what Adam Lanza was on, and whether his behavior does fit the template of a treatment-induced problem.”
However, in an email to WND, he said he suspected prescribed psychiatric medications was the cause of Lanza’s violent behavior.
Healy said that while the public waits to learn more about Lanza, there are two general points that can be made.
First, he said, “psychotropic drugs of pretty well any group can trigger violence up to and including homicide.”
“Second, the advocates of treatment claim both that it is the illness and not the drugs that causes violence and that we are leaving huge numbers of people untreated.”
But Healy argued that if this were the case, “we should not find that comfortably over 90 percent of school shootings are linked to medication intake.”
Dr. Peter R. Breggin, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former full-time consultant at the National Institute of Mental Health, told WND it’s likely that problems for Lanza began with “getting tangled up” with psychiatric medicine.
Breggin insisted there has been overwhelming scientific evidence for decades correlating psychiatrically prescribed drugs with violence.
Writing in Ethical Human Sciences and Services, a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, in 2003, Breggin concluded SSRI drugs could be a factor in suicide, violence and other forms of extreme abnormal behavior, as evidenced in case reports, controlled clinical trials, and epidemiological studies in children and adults.
Breggin testified to Congress that research conducted in the medical science demonstrates a causal relationship between antidepressant drugs and the production of suicide, violence, mania and other behavioral abnormalities.
He warned Congress of the risks of giving these drugs to heavily armed young men and women in the military.
Mainstream religion
Breggin asserted that establishment media “ignores the scientific evidence linking psychiatric medications and violent behavior because psychiatry is the religion of the mainstream media, and they don’t want to see the dangers of psychiatrically prescribed drugs.”
“Besides, the drug companies also have incredible influence through advertising such that they can call the shots,” he said.
He believes the Lanza case fits the pattern of school shooters in some of the most famous incidents in recent memory, including the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado and the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007.
“Adam Lanza has in common with many of the young men who were shooters that they were outsiders who lived in the shadows, who deal with a lot of shame, humiliation and isolation,” Breggin explained.
He calls the psychiatric diagnoses “worthless.”
“We know exactly who they are,” he said. “They are called ‘geeky’ in the extreme. Not a single one has ever come forward with a close friend. They are alienated from their families, and they have been involved in psychiatry.”
Breggin insists that instead of psychiatric treatment, children of this kind need “more reaching out, more socialization, more caring, more involvement.”
“Our schools, our families, and our communities need to be aware of the kids who are withdrawn and violent, not because they are going to become violent – hardly any of them are going to become violent – but because these are really hurt kids,” he said.
“We can call them evil, we can call them mentally ill, but the pattern is really quite clear,” Breggin continued. “They are highly intelligent and highly withdrawn and they are all involved with psychiatry, so the claim psychiatry is going to do some good is really ridiculous.”
In many school shootings carried out by minors, court documents are sealed and the extent of chemical use is unknown to the public.
But in a number of high-profile cases, the link has been reported:
  • Kip Kinkel was withdrawing from Prozac and had been prescribed Ritalin when he murdered his mother and stepfather then shot 22 classmates, killing two, in 1998.
  • Christopher Pittman was withdrawing from Luvox and from Paxil when he killed his paternal grandparents in 2001.
  • Elizabeth Bush, who fired at fellow students in Williamsport, Pa., in 2001, wounding one, was on Prozac.
  • Jason Hoffman, was on Effexor and Celexa when he opened fire at his El Cajon, Calif., high school, wounding five.
  • Shawn Cooper of Notus, Idaho, was on antidepressants when he fired a shotgun on students and staff.
  • T.J. Solomon, on antidepressants, wounded six at his Conyers, Ga., high school.
  • Eric Harris was taking Luvox when he and fellow student Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves at Columbine High School in Colorado.
  • At Virginia Tech in 2007, where 32 were murdered, authorities found “prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems had been found among Mr. Cho’s effects,” according to the New York Times.
“Violence and other potentially criminal behavior caused by prescription drugs are medicine’s best kept secret,” Healy said in a statement last month. “Never before in the fields of medicine and law have there been so many events with so much concealed data and so little focused expertise.”
In the past six years, Healy has authored two best-selling books analyzing the degree to which the pharmaceutical industry has influenced medical doctors to prescribe antidepressant drugs to patients with psychiatric problems: “Let Them Eat Prozac: The Unhealthy Relationship Between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Depression,” in 2006 and “Pharmageddon” in 2012.
Recently, Healy’s added a “violence section” to its website, allowing users to enter the name of a prescription drug to find out the side effects recorded in the more than 4 million adverse drug event reports filed with the FDA since 2004.
Was Lanza on meds?
Writing for Monday, Emily Willingham was quick to warn against demonizing Asperger’s syndrome, or autism in general, as the cause of Lanza’s violence. Likewise, in a New York magazine piece titled “Asperger’s is a Red Herring to Explain the Newtown Massacre,” Adam Martin wrote, “As the nation sets out to understand how Friday’s massacre came to pass, some are rightly worried that the high-functioning form of autism will become unfairly stigmatized.”
Nevertheless, credible sources have not withdrawn published claims that Lanza was on prescribed psychiatric medication at the time of the shooting.
On CBS’s “60 Minutes” Sunday, Mark and Louise Tambascio, friends of the shooter’s mother, Nancy Lanza, said Adam Lanza was being medicated for Asperger’s.
“I know [Adam Lanza] was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldn’t deal with the school classes sometimes,” Louise Tambascio told CBS reporter Scott Pelley. “So she just homeschooled Adam at that home. And that was her life.”
Her comment followed Mark Tambascio explaining to Scott Pelley that “friends told us that [Asperger's syndrome] did dominate the Lanzas’ lives.”
In addition, the Washington Post reported over the weekend an unnamed former neighbor of Nancy and Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn., recalled Adam as “a really rambunctious kid” who “was on medication.”
The story became confused when a now discredited source claiming to be Adam Lanza’s “Uncle Jonathan” told several publications, including the Sun in the United Kingdom, that Adam was being treated with the strong anti-psychotic drug Fanapt.
Later reports found no relatives who knew “Uncle Jonathan.”
Separately, law enforcement officers have found evidence Lanza played graphically violent video games, the Hartford Courant reported on Sunday.
The Express in the United Kingdom reported Monday that Lanza had “an unhealthy obsession for violent video games” and that his favorite video game was said to be a “shockingly violent” fantasy war game called Dynasty Warriors, which is “thought to have given him inspiration to act on his darkest thoughts.”